have it had no further contact for whatever reason. we never consummated any contracts. there was no monetary exchange. we did not get paid for anything that we did. except for discussing what was there, we did not officially produce a report or anything like that. i would just like to reveal that. i feel that i do not have a conflict of interest in this particular case. if convict -- commissioners feel differently, they can chime in. >> good evening, members of the commission. the case before you is located at 1268 lombard street. they want to construct four units on the subject lot. it is owned rh3. -- it zoned rh3.

they want to construct a four- story building on a vacant lot. there are many neighbors opposed to the product. the russian hills neighbor group is opposed to the project. the penthouse and roof? would negatively impact adjacent neighbors. the units would be to -- too much density for the lot. they would also support the construction of a three-story home at the rear of the lot. an adjacent neighborhood directly appeal from the project is also opposed and has provided opposition. at this time, the department recommends approval of the conditional use with conditions. the project is necessary and desirable as the project has the

density with the neighborhood. the project is of a scale and mass that is compatible with other construction in the neighborhood. the new building would be considered an important landfill project. this is not found to significantly impact trafficke access or in pugh in the muni service or older public transport. i would like to also add that as part of this project, this commission was concurrently reviewing calls hundred 59 at lombard street, which is right across -- a 1259 at lombard street, which is right across from this project print this is before you for review of the historical preservation

commission. i will not spend much time discussing that. if you would like to hear more about that, i would be happy to disclose that information. we decided to do that prior to the issuance of our categorical exemption of the project. i would be happy to answer any questions. that concludes my presentation. >> thank you, project sponsors. >> thank you. good evening, commissioners. i am representing the project

sponsor on this project, proposing a four-unit building on this lot. conditional approval is necessary for the building on this lot. we want to build this and as required by law, it would be a fully handicapped accessible building. we have 7500 net square feet of residential area. 1800 sq. ft. per unit. four-car parking. the neighborhood is a mix of single-family and multiple use structures. at the bottom of the street is 830 plus unit apartment building. above us is a three-unit building.

as you go up the street, there are two trees. there might be a single family. there is a fairly consistent streetscape. we are also across the street from an eligible historic district. our facade is classically derived. a two-story garage as you go up all the street. this section is set back about 15 feet behind the large magnolia tree. it is all in proportion. the idea is traditional.

they allowed district contributors to shine. as you go to the back of the lot, it is pushed up against our larger neighbor. these homes have a 10-foot setbacks along the side. the rear yard is deep. with the new building, there will be 37.5 feet of open space as compared to five-feet of rear yard. this is as compared to 25 feet below us. i want to focus on where we are. this project has inspired a

very high level of community interest. we came to you a month ago and requested a continuance so that we can engage more with neighbors. in 2009 and 2010, we had several meetings with the neighbors. there were many responses to those concerns. so we have met with the uphill neighbors who have roof decks. we have met with the russian hills neighbor association. we have met with someone who has rejected a compromise proposal, which we made. this would allow more air and light to his kitchen.

a number of issues with this project. perhaps joe will speak to that. this was hurt by the planning side. the conclusion was that it was a legal demolition. this should be considered a vacant lot. is this building to date? the density is about half the density of the building up above us. a third of the density or better downhill. in terms of f.a.r., they are all about three. is this story to call? our front side is 34 feet, like both of our neighbors. >> we may call you back up for

additional questions. >> i have something i would like to address that will take about one minute. >> the people are saying that they want to open up for public comment. we will call you at a later time. we are limiting public comment to two minutes. thomas, and joseph butler, jerry, nick. i will keep calling names, courtney, jeff, stephen. i am calling all of these names, but nobody is coming up. whenever order you want is fine.

it is two minutes each. somebody needs to talk. >> good evening, members of the commission. on page two of the categorical exemption, staff states that we are within a setting of a potential historic district. when he was tasked with a survey of building, we had a grant from the foundation and we were limited in the amount of resources that he could tackle. we knew that this would be at california registry. we knew that he could go across the street. there are three aspects that tell part of the story of the robert price house which planning staff acknowledges it is within the settings --

they were modified to include the entire set back of your original house. that is with its magnolia tree. the entry of the neighboring building would be restored or maintained. the cliff, which is evident looking down, would still be present. and the tree would be retained. it is given a root area of 11 by 15. use the entire front yard of the house, which is 15 or 17-feet deep. restricting it to 11 by 15, would it save the tree? i am not sure. it would be important to look at

that. could we please have the front setback and a building that is more to scale with its neighbors? a lot of this project is so big and does not back up like its neighbors. they have smaller rear yards. thank you very much. >> i am ahead of the land use committee. in evaluating this project, we did not look at whether the demolition was legal or illegal, but whether they have clean hands in the demolition of the project. not understanding that guideline, and they look back at it as a if we would support this project. they were against supporting

this project for three reasons. due to the fact that this is an established district. we felt that the average height of the buildings from the east and west neighbors would be in line with the district. the fourth unit, this is already an over traffic district. by adding a fourth unit, you would be adding traffic to an already over trafficked residential street. these houses are poorly configured and they affect the neighbors to the east. there are two different proposals for the penthouses. what we are looking for you from the neighbor's side, if the project does not have clean hands when it comes to its demolition, where are the causes, if there are any. we would greatly appreciate it.

>> members of the commission, my name is steven. i am the owner of 1262 at lombard street, which is directly uphill from the current site. obviously, i am here to oppose the project. why do i not save everybody some time and turn it over to my architectural consultant? >> thank you. my name is jerry. 10 years ago, we were asked to look at the cottage in terms of upgrading. we had a number of structural reports that were done. the thought was that we would go ahead and redo the cottage.

we made a submission to the planning commission. at that time, the landmarks board declined to certify this as landmark eligible. we designed a three-unit condominium project. in that design, which allowed him to have a least a light shaft going along beside. what is given now is a very small area where he once had light, air and sunlight coming in. when they decided that they had to sell the cottage, he talked to the sponsors about his pre requisite. he wanted to end these keep the semblance of light and air. what is being given is a light shaft over here.

that stops the sunshine coming in. after a long period of time, he was never contacted by the sponsors until the first time he saw the project. he is here to oppose this. we have this one. we did this a long time ago. it is not about architecture. we left some space over here so that there could be some light coming in. what is being proposed is a building which completely eliminates what he once had. this goes wall to wall. if you look at the next picture -- >> thank you. they are followed by marvin.

>> i thought that you had called jeff. i would like to speak. i am the owner of the property at lombard, which is two doors to the east of the proposed property. michael owners and i purchase property in december, 2002 under the understanding that the neighborhood we were buying property in was a series of 1-3- unit buildings. i was in front of the commission to change our building. i do not know if you can read. this was the report that was prepared for my case. this shows what lombard street looks like.

other than one property, and every other house on that block is one-three units. much like the rest of the neighbors, i propose this project because of the sheer density. the rooftop structure i do not understand. it is a four-unit building. the developer which is to give every people -- every person access to the rooftop. this significantly increases the height of the overall building. i do not understand why it is that a structure needs to be built such that it would allow all four units within that building access to the rooftop. >> there are no more speaker cards. >> hello, commissioners.

i lived four houses up from the proposed development. i was not going to say this. we would not be here on less the cottage was demolished. i spoke to the woman who lives here. her name is michelle. she had said, and she states in writing as part of the record, prior to the cottage being demolished, we had a severe letdown that lasted several days. upon looking, i sought that this was rushing out to the cottage on lombard. there were holes in the roof. i would like to make this part of the record. that is why the cottage is not there now. if there were holes in the roof, i wonder if he put them there when he sold them. i wonder what the developer did

or did not do to this cottage. he got pneumonia and the pneumonia it was not treated. prior to the cottage been demolished, i saw holes in the roof. water was poll -- pouring down the stairs and into the lot. there was an emergency order demolishing the cottage. now we are talking about a structure that nobody is looking at from the north to the south with these roof decks and dr. mays. -- dr. knees. i do not know if he popped the champagne when this was demolished. every building on our street is terraced slightly upwards as we go west.

this one is slightly higher. this is what it looks like. with that, i think he will get a clear understanding. >> thank you. over here, sir. >> i am and owner of the property at lombard street. we have been living there for 22, 23 years. it is uniform as far as the roof line. i guess the sponsor mentioned that there are more units. there are apartment buildings down below us. now, when i talk about the

building, we are not talking about remodeling. we had a stairway to the roof. the penthouse is up 40 feet. it comes to about 50 feet at the penthouse. i do not understand that. i think that is too big. i have a lot that is 30 feet by 100. i disagree with the builders saying that they are consistent. my building, i have less than 4000 square feet of space. they have four units. it is part of character. -- out of character. i feel that the structure is

intrusive to the neighborhood. >> are apologize for not submitting edit card. my name is bill. the e-mail that was read earlier is from one of my tenants. i have a couple of single women that live in my building. they were confused about my support or lack of support for this project. i am probably the building that is most impacted by it it. i just wanted to submit these sketches that i had actually sent after meeting a couple of times with mr. morris and the commissioner at the site. they asked me to go and support the project. i said that there were concessions that they had made.

if you look at the rendering on the back, it will show that the building was pushed over a bit for my property, which actually has a beneficial effect to my building. this was a letter i sent in 2009 to david. i bought this in 1997. when mike contractor came to the commission, i remodel the upper unit and kept the integrity of the building in place. i was able to put up a pretty cool building. it was moved to a location originally built in the 1930's. i have had a couple of meetings at my property to propose these plans. mr. morris has been open to my concerns. my property was moved to this location back in the 1930's.

it was originally built at the palace of fine arts. while we appreciate the progress that has been made, we are concerned -- president olague: we have a copy of the letter to staff. thank you. it is sort of in between, i think. >> hello. courtney clarkson. i live in pacific heights. i am not a neighbor. however, i have been interested in what has happened to this property. i have to set a was upset and appalled about the so-called emergency demolition that happened to what was one of our oldest buildings in san francisco. this is not something that just happened to somebody who bought a building and may be wanted to restore it. the original building was bought

by people who are in the business of making sure that these old buildings fall down. they make sure they are not in any condition to be rehabilitated. i would like to see every creation of the building that should never have been torn down. i think the fact that the project sponsors, who do this sort of thing for a living, should not be rewarded for tearing down one of our most historic properties. i think you need to have them go back to the drawing board and come up with something that is far more appropriate for the site in a historic district, in a historic area. there are many of us in the preservation community who are just appalled by what was allowed to happen. it seems to me there was a provision in either the planning code or the building code that

if an illegal demolition occurs that the building has to either be rebuilt to the same square footage or cannot be built on for a number of years. i would like you to look at that. i hope the planning commission will do the right thing and send this back to the drawing board. let us get on a corporate project for a very -- let us get an appropriate project for this part of town. >> my name is mic tatnoavich. when i saw the project plan for the new building, i was glad they would build something there, but not the way it is planned now. the structure they are proposing completely blocks the view where i live. it also blocks all the light in

the dining room and the kitchen, and part of a bathroom. it completely darkens the whole top unit of the building. if you look at the whole proposal, the street curbs nicely. it slopes down. this project stands out more than any other building on the street. what i would like to see is a revised proposal, where the allied mobile allowed -- where the light would be allowed in 1262 lombard and it would not be higher. president olague: public comment is closed. everyone has been handing in cards. if anyone who is going to speak to the project can stand up

here, we can get to them. >> sorry, commissioners. if i could, the overhead, please fa. president olague: that line is blocking the door. for fire purposes, we would like people to stand on this side. please speak. your two minutes are running. >> grace shanahan. i would like to put on significant information regarding the contractual and easement agreements with the molinari partnership. regarding the easement, representing the partnership in the sale of 1268 lombard, i would like to point out addendum 3. it states the buyer accepts the easement agreement attached. item four